Williams is #1, but....

Let me start by saying I'm perfectly aware of the stupidity of biting the hand that feeds you, yet... I think some commentary is valuable here, if only for the inevitable future rankings that don't place us at #1.

I do think that Williams is the best institution in the country, but it's not because Forbes says so. Here's why. Forbes lists the following parts for its ratings:

• Average salaries of graduates reported by Payscale.com (30%)
• Number of alumni listed in a Forbes/CCAP list of corporate officers (5%)
• Enrollment-adjusted entries in Who's Who in America (10%).
• Freshman-to-sophomore retention rates (5%)
• Student evaluations of classes on the websites RateMyProfessors.com (17.5%) and MyPlan.com (5%). 
• Four-year debt load for a typical student borrower (12.5%)
• Overall student loan default rate (5%). 
• Actual graduation rate (8.75%) 
• Gap between the average rate and a predicted rate, (8.75%). 

More methodology info is here (pdf), along with justifications for each data set that I don't have time to parse tonight. But here are the main problems:

1. The average salary of graduates is, in itself, not an accurate ranking of professional success within one's field, but instead dependent on the fields that grads enter. A college with a lot of pre-Med and pre-finance students, like Williams, will do well here because of the kind of students who come here, not because we educate them espeically better. A college with a undergrad population that's into non-profit work is going to get skewered here. This same critique applies to the corporate offices part, though it's understandable given Forbes's area of focus.
2. Rate my Professor is alien to me because we have our own system, Faktrak, which is (properly) anonymous and only accessible to students. Whatever the sample of feedback put up there for Williams, I don't trust it because it's a poor sample. Same for MyPlan.
3. Debt load and default % will depend on the financial resources of the school and how generous its aid policies are. While resources are important, it would probably be better to measure financial aid directly, instead of this measurement, which penalizes schools that have poorer undergrad populations.

The last thing I'll say is that using these numbers puts pressure on schools to get kids to come back/graduate when that might not be the best thing for some students. I don't want these rankings to be too important, because if they are, it makes the work of education that much more difficult. Williams is the wrong place for some people; they come and realize that a city would have made more sense, or that snow isn't their thing at all. Those are legit reasons not to like it here, but Forbes can't distinguish between those and other reasons.


Still cool, though.

Toleration

My shared links feed has been a bit focused on the Cordoba Center recently. It's because this issue is a litmus test, in my mind, on our progression or regression as a society (and I don't mean that in the political sense.)

Immature societies and people have a hard time comprehending, understanding, and accepting those who are different than they are. Without deep knowledge of who they are and what led them to be that way, they cannot consider the different paths available. It's the difference between looking around while walking one's path and dogmatically keeping one's nose to the ground. If we reject peaceful Muslims, than we reject tolerance, and that way leads to all kinds of nasty that I would rather not see.

If, though, we accept and embrace the different flavors around us (including our own; I am not advocating one world culture), then we are a stronger and more secure society as a result. But such acceptance is not inevitable, and I will fight for it everyday.

Not because I might change society, but because each mind changed is a step in the right direction.

Why I don't think P2P is moral

 From a comment on Facebook that got very long.

Record companies got started because of the high cost of production & distribution, since they could centralize those processes. While those are each much cheaper (esp. distribution), production still costs a fair chunk of change.

The power of a label is that it can take a young artist and make an investment in that artist, provide facilities and promotional power, and then (hopefully) cash in on the artist's success. You seem to be suggesting that this is possible without the company, when I'm not convinced that's the case.

Consider this: I worked this summer for a non-profit that's trying to set up micro-franchising in developing countries, where the non-profit trains and supplies a distributor who sells valuable goods (like solar powered lights & cheap medical supplies) to people in the surrounding area. The goods are cheap to produce & sell, and they make a real difference.

BUT, sometimes the franchises fail. Goods get stolen (without police to investigate), franchise owners don't sell the stuff, and the goods might get damaged. The only way for the non-profit to protect itself against financial insolubility is to charge a small commission on the goods sold by successful franchisees, to pay for the % of franchises/training that fail.

The real world implication of this is that while shopowners know that they wouldn't be successful without the training, and know that their improved situation is due to the non-profit, they quickly get annoyed at the % of profit going to the non-profit and claim it's "not fair." This problem is bad enough that there are suggestions to hide that hidden cost in the supply costs of the goods so that the franchisee never sees the $ going to the non-profit, but that's not open or fair.

Yet someone could look at this situation and claim, correctly, that the people doing the real world are getting gipped and the non-profit is making a net profit off of them.

The difference between this and the above is that a record company is for-profit. Wouldn't then, it make the most sense to make music distribution/promotion a non-profit industry?

Justin Bieber was a success on youtube, but it took a record company to make him a star. I don't love his music, but I can't help but think that without these centralized promotion and production machines, talented artists will remain in unfortunate obscurity.

P2P has had good effects, and the industry does have problems, but someone has to pay for that initial investment. If not a label, than who?

Tea Party "Patriots"

This is the most frightening thing I've read in a long time.

Annie Hamilton: Muslim Day at Six Flags is inappropriate for a multitude of reasons and I'm saddened and shocked by the ignorance of the Corporate folks and by the action that now must be taken by the rest of us.

First, Islam is NOT a religion, it is an ideology - the religious portion only encompasses 11 % (the qur'an) the rest is the Sira and Hadith and the closest parallel to Islam is the Ku Klux Klan - if that is Six Flag's idea of 'appropriate' then by all means, hold your day on September 12th but don't plan on expanding any time soon because not only will we ensure that you don't grow, we'll make sure that your parks become a thing of the past.

Islam is dying in America because Americans are learning (finally) what Muslims are about, what their 'faith' is based upon, how they're recruited, how they prey on the weak, their idea of 'rights' how they cannot ever respect our constitution because it's in direct violation with Sharia and how they must abide by a set of laws called dualism, compelling them to lie to others.

It is becoming WELL KNOWN that ISLAM IS DYING IN AMERICA, despite what you might be hearing from CAIR and others - the more it dies, the more frantic they become and the more they put out press releases about how 'fabulous' things are, new mosques, etc...(except they are broke and hitting others up for funds)

If Islam is dying in America, it's because you and people like you are trying to kill it, Ms. Hamilton.

STOP placating them - in addition, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim, regardless of what you've heard - from the mouth of the son of a well known Imam. Islam is as Islam does. And Regardless of what you might think, there is no such thing of a 'mild' muslim, even the 'quiet' ones who live on the street corner, drive the BMW and work in the dr's office...they go to mosque, satisfy the pillars, pray, etc...and the money they are giving, that is funding terror.

it is funding terror - and by your silence, YOU are funding terror. YOU are funding terror.

STOP THE SILENCE. STOP THE NONSENCE. STOP THE MUSLIM DAY - THEY ARE NOT AMERICANS. THEY DO NOT ABIDE BY OUR CONSTITUTION - THEY ARE NOT ONE OF US - YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US - MAKE YOUR DECISION.

"With us or against us." Black and white. Good and evil. Only madness lies this way.

Annie Hamilton
Los Angeles, California
P.S., I'm telling EVERYONE I know -

I know such opinions exist in this world, but I will do everything in my power (short of advocating against the right of free speech, which is sacrosanct), to stop such words from being part of an acceptable public discourse.

Do you remember the quote: "First they came..."

Well, the above is "them" trying to come for the Muslims. And I won't stand for it.

I actually think the Williams website does a decent job with its front page. I liked it as a high school senior, and it has remained useful as an undergrad. The underlying architecture needs help, but the school knows that.

But I think there's a decent point to be made about the map. I love our hand-drawn prettiness (and I think it does a great job at being clear and easy to read), but overhead maps are useful too. I was startled the first time I saw one; it was that strange.

Image source: XKCD

Review of Courting Disaster

Amazon link to the book

My first exposure to this book was a Jon Stewart hostile interview - the kind where Jon so much to say (and is so offended by the guy/gal he's talking to) that he doesn't mind his manners. Which Jon apologized for, which is why the Daily Show is still the best thing on television, which is another topic altogether.

In any case, I didn't know a lot about the book, and I had read in too much depth about the subject belong lengthy news articles and blog posts. But having gotten through it, I can unequivocally state that I was previously misinformed.

For one thing, the waterboarding that we used was strictly limited in application and duration in a way that the Khmer Rouge wasn't, so my previous comparisons of our practices to that group were wrongheaded. For another thing, it's perfectly clear from the book's evidence that Nancy Pelosi knew full well about what the CIA was doing at it's black sites and did not raise objection. It's also clear that some of the people advocating for the release of people at Guantanamo are communists.

The problem with the book is that the communistic tendencies of the lawyers have nothing to do with how Obama is "Courting Disaster." Thiessen routinely engages in guilt-by-association, implicating Eric Holder and various other justice department officials because individuals they worked with in private practice representing Guantanamo detainees. He also commits a worse offense by constantly labeling the people in Guantanamo as "terrorists" and as "enemies." The problem, of course, is that lots of people at Guantanamo were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got picked up, and that the point of the habeas proceedings was to identify those people who we had no business holding.

But Thiessen ignores this point, or only engages it obliquely by trying to make the case that a few false & indefinite detentions are necessary. One example he gives is of a special forces team that came across & captured some Afghan goat-herders who hadn't done anything. Without rope, Thiessen writes, they had to choose between shooting the guys and letting them go. After the guy in charge let them go, they alerted local fighters, who killed almost everyone in the unit, and Thiseen quotes the commander castigating himself for releasing them.

Wow. So his example of the "tough choices" we have to make is A: shooting an innocent person or B: letting them go and killing almost all of your unit. A sounds pretty attractive, until you think about the other possibilities, like knocking them out with chlorofoam. The world is not as black and white as Thiessen would have us believe.

There is also absolutely no mention of rendition. Nothing.

So while I now am completely convinced that we shouldn't prosecute CIA officials for following bad legal advice (and even more that John Yoo should be disbarred), I'm not going to recommend this book unless you know enough context to separate the useful information from the one-sided spin.

Muslims who died on 9/11

I wonder if Ms. Palin will ever cite this list.

Free-Will

A semi-friend on Tumblr  posted this quote today:

“It appears that a belief in free will may make people smarter, better at learning, better on the job, more ethical and more helpful to others. If more people believed in free will it appears the world would be a better place. So maybe we should be putting more energy into a question of greater utility than whether free will is ‘real’ or not, and trying to work out how to get more people to believe in free will? Unfortunately, a lot of activity in science and religion seems to be working in the opposite direction.”

—	David Rock (via Psychology Today) Thoughts?

 It's a good thought, but I think history shows that humans care more about knowing Truth and being Right than making the world better for everyone. The part of my education that I still need to learn is how humans fall short of the ideals, and how to build governments and policies that treat people as people instead of angels.

250 max250

cancel

Palin's Tweets

A moment of partisanship:

Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real 12:58 PM Jul 18th via Twitter for BlackBerry®

"Refute?" What? Yes, the pain at the Twin Towers site is probably raw, but that has very little to do with the rights of Americans to worship. Furthermore, the "Ground Zero Mosque" is a community center that's a block or two away - not even visible.

Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing 1:57 PM Jul 18th via Twitter for BlackBerry®

The subtext is that Americans (who happen to be Muslim) as responsble for America's "healing," and should accommodate people who are scared of their fellow citizens' right to worship. Building a church is not provocation in foreign countries where Christians killed people, right? This is the same way. It's xenophobic & wrong. I will acknowledge that there are Americans who equate all of Islam with 9/11, but Gov. Palin's role should be showing people what freedom of religion is all about.

"Refudiate," "misunderestimate," "wee-wee'd up." English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it! ! 3:38 PM Jul 18th via web

New words are cool when we don't have words that already mean the same thing. Switching out an f for a p does not a decent new word make.

Rant over.

The Blizzard Forums are growing up...

Blizzard has just announced that the new forums rolling out with an expansion to World of Warcraft: Cataclysm and Starcraft II will require users to post with their own name.

About time.

The internet as a popular device (which I date to September 1993, when AOL launched) is soon to turn 18. If you want to date it to the launch of the world wide web, then the internet is a little older. In any case, it's high time that the internet, writ large, outgrows its childhood of false names.

My personal observations have been that the internet featured "screen names," like Blobux, Controllerver, Redstate93, Kos, and Atrius. These names represented real people, but they came to be avatars - fake representations of a person. Thus a Wikipedia administrator and his encyclopedia were embarrassed when it came out that the advanced education belonging to the avatar was a lie invented by the real person. These fake names are everywhere, and they draw a line between "internet life" and "real life."

In many ways, I value those names. They offer a way for me to share stories, print ideas, and generally put content out there without my words dragging me behind. But those benefits and that culture of anonymity should be specialized.

The norm on the Internet should be our real names. The more we are ourselves - our whole selves, the more this new medium will grow up. That's why "poblano" became Nate Silver - not because the internet required it, but because the real world wasn't going to deal with a chili pepper.

I'll keep my anonymous accounts, and I will enjoy them, but if there's a widespread cultural change afoot, I will applaud it wholeheartedly.

EDIT: Some good points made about stereotypes/name confusion/harassment of women have convinced me that more thought is needed, and that Blizzard is probably not doing the right thing here for its customers, who need the forums post post suggestions or discussion game mechanics.

What happened to studying?

From the Boston Globe:

They come with polished resumes and perfect SAT scores. Their grades are often impeccable. Some elite universities will deny thousands of high school seniors with 4.0 grade point averages in search of an elusive quality that one provost called “intellectual vitality.” The perception is that today’s over-achieving, college-driven kids have it — whatever it is. They’re not just groomed; they’re ready. There’s just one problem.

Once on campus, the students aren’t studying.

It is a fundamental part of college education: the idea that young people don’t just learn from lectures, but on their own, holed up in the library with books and, perhaps, a trusty yellow highlighter. But new research, conducted by two California economics professors, shows that over the past five decades, the number of hours that the average college student studies each week has been steadily dropping. According to time-use surveys analyzed by professors Philip Babcock, at the University of California Santa Barbara, and Mindy Marks, at the University of California Riverside, the average student at a four-year college in 1961 studied about 24 hours a week. Today’s average student hits the books for just 14 hours....

The article goes on to state that the specific numbers (which I would like to see) show a decline across fields, college types, and various other demographics.

I'd say, though, that in my case, the issue is the accessibility of distractions or other ways to spend my time. I know, cognitively, that I should spend 3 hours reading a book passage, but those 3 hours get filled with a phone call, an e-mail, and other distractions such that my time (and more importantly, comprehension) is more limited. For the most part, I still learn what I need to learn, and oftentimes, more of the "aha" moments occur outside of the classroom. Yet I don't study as much as I should - I feel a lesser need to memorize who said what when it is so easily Googleable.

I don't have a solution, but I have been working for the past few months on building a personal set of memorized information, like the various philosophers whose ideas supported the American government construction of rights, and placing that where no power outage can threaten it.

Be careful who you trust.